Why is Omnipotence harder to realize than Omnipresence and Omniscience?

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, JoshB said:

This get's interesting because distinction of Mind and Truth collapse. 

I realized higher authority by actually surrendering to what is true is this what you're getting at?

People are dodging Truth better then dodgeballs. 

Who is dodging Truth.  This gets deep.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, JoshB said:

because distinction of Mind and Truth collapse. 

Of course.

Mind = Truth.

Quote

I realized higher authority by actually surrendering to what is true is this what you're getting at?

Yes.

But not just that. You need to realize that the nature of Truth/Mind is that nothing outside itself exists to validate it.

As long as Mind is asking others to validate it, then Mind has not yet realized that Mind is God/One.

Being God means knowing there is no one who can tell you what is right.

Notice that all of math is self-evident. Math does not require asking anyone what is true. That's why math is so powerful.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something. That's kinda what I've been hinting at.

Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not.

I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

Have you had the direct realization You are God?

[JoshB]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

Mind = Truth.

Yes.

But not just that. You need to realize that the nature of Truth/Mind is that nothing outside itself exists to validate it.

As long as Mind is asking others to validate it, the Mind has not yet realized that Mind is God/One.

I'm completely on the same page Awakening is completely self validating and luminous. But you mention not taking ownership of a certain awakening. Isn't by definition all awakening yours? 

Absolute Consciousness / Being is needed to Self Validate.

It's like using your pointer finger to point to itself.

Edited 3 hours ago by JoshB

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, JoshB said:

I'm completely on the same page Awakening is completely self validating and luminous. But you mention not taking ownership of a certain awakening  

Even though Awakening is self-evident, you still must dare to imagine it. You must dare to imagine even higher Awakenings.

The deeper the Awakening, the more daring and imagination it takes. The shallow Awakenings are easy and mostly automatic. The very deep ones are not automatic.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Even though Awakening is self-evident, you still must dare to imagine it. You must dare to imagine even higher Awakenings.

Okay this is what I was trying to ask. But isn't technically speaking is every awakening possible sitting right here as potentiality and you could collapse potential vs actual?  

Because Consciousness is Absolute where are these awakenings "hidden"? 

Edited 3 hours ago by JoshB

[ZeroZeroes]

On 9/20/2026 at 11:01 PM, Carl-Richard said:

It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things.

The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes.

God-Consciousness is directly tied to intelligence, understanding, etc.—their epitome. The degree to which a Consciousness understands maya is the degree of reality/solidity that it has. The more understanding, the more reality/solid/fundamental the Consciousness is.To say illusion isn’t real is to say nothing if it is not specified to what degree it is not real. All are real in that they exist, yet the degrees to which their existence holds is the test of the level of Consciousness. Say a mirage: it exists, thus is real, as a visual content and so on. Yet it does not exist corporeally beyond its place in the visual context. And corporeality is what it is faking. Thus, that falsehood, if not understood or seen through, determines the degree of Consciousness. Not because the Experience is not real, but because Consciousness was unable to determine its degree of truth.

As the Consciousness does not understand it is a mirage, if it did, it would be higher, even if it still experienced the same illusion. God-Consciousness understands/is all maya. The Experience is not what determines the degree of Consciousness. The structure of that Consciousness determines its degree, even if the Experience is the same. Although a change in structure likely will result in a change in Experience as well. After the changed structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the structure has no lasting effect. Concepts are also maya, because they are distinct from nothing.

The relationship between maya and truth is that illusion is necessary for any Consciousness to have existence, as in: to be, or have being. The content itself is necessary; distinction from the totality is necessary for Consciousness. So maya cannot be done away with without having an annihilation of distinct Experience/Consciousness. Which results in Truth. God does not do away with maya because it cannot. In order for anything to exist, it must be an illusory distinction from Totality. Maya IS existent reality since it is the only thing that can be Experienced, as it is the content of Consciousness. No maya means no Experience. Consciousness is Experience in content, not structure. Being IS illusion. Illusion is God itself. It is all that is. Yet Reality includes Totality and Consciousness. Totality is not distinct, which is not maya/God/being because it can never be differentiated whilst retaining the quality of not being distinct.

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something. That's kinda what I've been hinting at.

Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not.

I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

A baby can have a state experience of such features filling its Consciousness which would fill its Experience of reality—the content of it: Peace, Love, Bliss. It would not be an awakening, as those relate to the context/possibility space/that which holds the experienced Consciousness as a whole. The context of the baby’s whole reality being solipsistic truth, with it/God as sole authority, would not be grasped. And as such, it would not be lasting once the Experience of peace, love, bliss, or even a solipsistic Experience of it being the sole authority goes away and its Consciousness is filled with insecurity of its survival.This would change its Experience away from the heightened state, making it not an awakening, as it is not fully grasped/intuited, as it is transitory. An awakening would require an insight or inherent understanding of the structure of the baby’s being/Consciousness. This insight does likely need some structure which can grasp it rather than simply being an interesting happening. Does that structure have to be cognitive? I doubt it, but to communicate it, yeah. It may be strictly cognitive for humans.

By your definition of an Experience being an awakening, then it would be possible for a baby to have it. Although the understanding and change in structure of what happens/is (Experience) as a necessary part of awakening. A ball can smack a baby’s face. It would Experience it. I wouldn’t say it had an awakening about balls, smacking, or of anything really. If that smack resulted in the baby having an insight into the workings of color, inertia, pain, mass, elasticity, which could all be structured/intuited/grasped from the Experience of the ball, then just the Experience wouldn’t necessitate an awakening nor insight. The distinction of Experience and structure/context falls apart since an awakening changes the very Experience to incorporate that changed structure, for that and future Experience. So, if an awakening to love happens, an Experience of it would be drastically different, as it would encompass the structure of that love into its being/Experience/Consciousness itself. After the structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the change in structure has no lasting effect.

Edited 2 hours ago by ZeroZeroes
Remove abbreviation

[Carl-Richard]

@ZeroZeroes Feel free to rewrite all of that while dropping the unnecessary abbreviation of terms. When the words abbreviated are already short and you use many abbreviations, it can reduce comprehension rather than increase it.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[ZeroZeroes]

@Carl-Richard Done